Fangio vs Senna vs Schumacher

[Grand Prix]

I'm going to stick my neck out about Senna. Here goes...

Of all the drivers I've ever seen he was one of (if not the) most talented in terms of finding the maximum grip wherever it was on the track. Unfortunately his belief in his invincibility and his sometimes-angry impetuousness was a serious serious flaw. Some blame his strong religious sense for that but I think that even if he'd been atheist he would have still considered himself invincible.

Watching Ron Dennis speak the other day about Senna's regret after he crashed into Prost (a saga that the Senna film dramatised beautifully if very one-sidedly) spoke, to me at least, of Senna's internal torment between his feelings as a man and his feelings as a driver.

So... what makes a good driver in the context of this thread? Charisma, ultimate skill corner-by-corner or the ability to plan, manage, and to know when to cede?

For me Fangio had all those things AND could light a cigarette one-handed around Spa. 'Nuff said

And WHERE is Nuvolari?!

This

First page dudes. 👍

Lets post some more about him anyway. Greatest upset win of all time?


Should also mention Gilles Villeneuve, Stirling Moss and 1930s driver Bernd Rosemeyer in the discussion of greatest drivers. Villeneuve and Moss were certainly championship material, and some might say two of the greatest drivers ever. Rosemeyer though, he was a freak. Here, read this:

His career, like many other drivers of the period, began in motorcycles. He competed in various local races including hill-climbs riding BMWs and NSU's. He gained a reputation for quickness as well as becoming a crowd favorite for his happy, ebullient personality. He came to the attention of the DKW factory. DKW had recently joined a group of other manufacturers to form the Auto Union group. A revolutionary new Grand Prix car was being built at the Horch factory, at Zwickau, under the direction of Dr. Ferdinand Porsche. These new cars featured 16-cylinder engines installed at the rear with all independent suspension and aerodynamic bodies. Hearing of this new development Rosemeyer naturally felt that he should be the one to drive these new beasts. Auto Union's star driver at the time was Austrian Hans Stuck who took the new car to victories at the German, Swiss and Czech Grands Prix. The Auto Union team manager, Willy Walb finally gave in to his young driver's pleading and offered him a trial in November.

On the morning of the test Rosemeyer showed up wearing a suit! Asked by Walb why he was not wearing overalls, Rosemeyer answered that "Well this is a special occasion for me - my premiere in a racing car - so I thought I'd dress for it." Walb did not know what to make of this impetuous driver but soon had an answer. The trial was at the daunting Nurburgring, but luckily Rosemeyer was familiar with the course, having raced on motorcycles there on more than one occasion. Soon he was settling down to business. Even though he was now handling 10 times the horse power than he had experienced before, he was making some quick times. Almost as if the car had a mind of its own, it sensed the young man's growing confidence and set out to teach him a little humility. Rosemeyer applying the power a little too quickly, the back end swung around. After doing two complete revolutions and ending up in a meadow he returned to the pits. The car was inspected for damage while Willy Walb was taking the measure of the young Rosemeyer. Would this driver be able to tame the beast he thought to himself. Rosemeyer returned to the track and was soon equaling the times of the vastly more experienced Stuck. Walb decided to sign Rosemeyer as a reserve driver. The car which terrified many who tried to drive it held no perils for him. Since his only previous experience was racing motorcycles he assumed that all cars drove like the Auto Union!

Never drove a car before, and conquered one of the most difficult handling cars of the period (which is saying a lot), and fairly quickly at that. In 1936 he would go on to win the 1936 Eifelrennen at a fog-covered Nurburgring, and win that year's European championship.



And a lovely tribute to the man:



Greatest natural talent motorsport has ever seen? I think he was one of them at least.

 

[Dimse91]

Kimi Raikkonen is my favorite.

"He knows what he is doing!", thats why!

 

[CarBastard]

First of all, I have to agree that comparing F1 drivers between eras is nigh impossible if the purpose is determining which is best. Some were faster, because cars were faster. Some were braver, because cars were deathtraps. Some were more balanced, because training changed a lot since F1s begginings. Some are absolute legends and each of us has one of them atop our personal altar and won't move him from there 'til the day we die.

But, that said...

It's gotta be Juan Manuel "El Maestro" Fangio. Hands down. To me, no one can even come close to him as a driver and as a person. I've read his biography/autobiography and the man is just unbelievable, on and off track. And if you want proof of his driving prowess, just browse for his race at Nurburgring (big boys Nurburgring) in 1957. The men who finished in 2nd and 3rd didn't carry him in their arms for free.

As the tango says: "Fangio, de campeones el campeon!"

 

[Liquid]

Prost, anyone?

No one likes Prost after the Senna movie. Which is a shame because he was also an amazing driver.

The Sky Sports F1 "Legends" series of interviews does include one with Prost and it's good to see him getting some positive coverage.

And yeah, nothing more to add to this thread other than what has been saud already. Plucking the three most famous names and wanting to see who is best is impossible. Neither is comparable to another; each decade is so different to the one that preceded it.

It's important to not blur history together, too. For example, you can't compare Hakkinen to Piquet or Piquet to Stewart, or Clark to Fangio. Nor can you compare Fangio to Nuvolari, Caracciola or Rosemeyer.

Everyone can have their favourites (Fangio and Clark are very high on my list) but there is no objective way of proving one over another; what about Mario Andretti? In terms of multi-discipline success, proving without doubt that he is a talented driver, he is almost without equal.

 

[Peasantslayer]

Is this just for F1 drivers? because I was thinking Valentino Rossi, he's looked fast in a kart, rally car, F1 testing and of course bikes and you've also got John Surtees and Mike Hailwood of course who've done well in F1 and on motorbikes.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Everyone can have their favourites (Fangio and Clark are very high on my list) but there is no objective way of proving one over another...

As if that little detail ever stops anyone

 

[mustafur]

Can't compare fangio as his era was too different of the other two.

I would say Senna would be fastest out of the 3 but not the best, being fast doesn't make you the best, being able to deliver the overall package to win is what makes you the greatest as racing is about winning not about showing off, therefore Schumacher IMO is surpiror to senna, Prost also had this ability but I think he lacked a little natural talent compared to Schumacher.

If you watch how Senna approaches his races and how Schumacher does you can tell which one knows how to win when put in extreme diversity, and it's not Senna.

 

[mustafur]

And even on the rare occasion that they did pose a threat, team orders made short work of that. Austria 2002?

He cleaned up Nelson piquet on his debut year in Benetton, car didn't always finish but qualifying was one sided.

 

[SagarisGTB]

He cleaned up Nelson piquet on his debut year in Benetton, car didn't always finish but qualifying was one sided.

To be fair to Piquet, he was an old man at that point and on the verge of retirement. Prost was far superior to Lauda pace-wise in 84 and 85, yet few would point to that as evidence of Prost's best days being better than Lauda's best.

 

[mustafur]

To be fair to Piquet, he was an old man at that point and on the verge of retirement. Prost was far superior to Lauda pace-wise in 84 and 85, yet few would point to that as evidence of Prost's best days being better than Lauda's best.

I think Laudas best days where the mid to late 70s, after his first retirement, whilst still a good racer wasn't the same level.

But I do think Prost is a better driver then him regardless.

On Piquet, yeah he was 38/39 at the time Schumi arrived but you got to keep in mind Schumi came in Mid season straight from a Season of Endurance racing and instantly outperformed him, whilst you could say Piquet would of been at his weakest, its pretty much the same thing with with Schumi.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Exactly, it's 100% his merit building a winning team out of nothing. I remember 1996 when Newey made a super Williams but Micheal was able to win 3 races, than 1997 final drama, 1998 a great year ruined by Spa episode, 1999 Silverstone crash and finally 2000. The rest is history. No other driver achieved similar results with Ferrari, which is, with all the due respect for british teams, the most iconic team in the world.

I think Schumacher is the best of all time but claiming that building a winning team is 100% his merit is total rubbish. None of what Ferrari achieved would have been possible without Jean Todt.

 

[HKS racer]

I think Schumacher is the best of all time but claiming that building a winning team is 100% his merit is total rubbish. None of what Ferrari achieved would have been possible without Jean Todt.

Jean Todt was already there when we were nothing more than a joke with Alesi and Berger.

 

[GTPorsche]

Ross Brawn more than Todt...

 

[NFSCARBON1]

Fangio was simply gifted. He understood his cars positives and negatives in minute detail, and adapted his style to suit.

Ayrton Senna had almost otherworldly precision and speed and could coax his cars to do things they really shouldn't be doing.

Schumacher was an expert at setting up and developing his cars to suit his style. He was also a fantastic tactician. Yes in his Ferrari years he had the best car, but he was one of the reasons it was the best.

In the same car with no setup changes
Senna, Schumacher, Fangio

With setup/development
Schumacher, Senna, Fangio

However in a 1950's era Formula car, Fangio would win hands down as I don't think Senna and Schumacher would have the physical strength to man handle those cars for hours at a time.

 

[Bigbazz]

Fangio was simply gifted. He understood his cars positives and negatives in minute detail, and adapted his style to suit.

Ayrton Senna had almost otherworldly precision and speed and could coax his cars to do things they really shouldn't be doing.

Schumacher was an expert at setting up and developing his cars to suit his style. He was also a fantastic tactician. Yes in his Ferrari years he had the best car, but he was one of the reasons it was the best.

In the same car with no setup changes
Senna, Schumacher, Fangio

With setup/development
Schumacher, Senna, Fangio

However in a 1950's era Formula car, Fangio would win hands down as I don't think Senna and Schumacher would have the physical strength to man handle those cars for hours at a time.

Lack of physical strength? You're comparing a slightly overweight 40 + year old man in that era with two trained athletes? Fangio had incredible skill and talent, but to say that he would win because he somehow has more physical strength/endurance than the two guys who are best known for for being in prime physical form.. is ludicrous.

 

[NFSCARBON1]

Lack of physical strength? You're comparing a slightly overweight 40 + year old man in that era with two trained athletes? Fangio had incredible skill and talent, but to say that he would win because he somehow has more physical strength/endurance than the two guys who are best known for for being in prime physical form.. is ludicrous.

Fangio, despite his age and weight managed to wrestle his car with no seatbelts for races lasting over 3 hours. Senna and Schumachers cars, correct me if I'm wrong, featured power steering and assisted brake pedals. I feel in a car of that era, they would not have the endurance to keep up with Fangio for a full 1950's race distance, as they had not trained for it.

Modern F1 drivers are as highly 'tuned' as their machines. You wouldn't expect an F1 car to run flat out for races twice the distance of todays without encountering issues.
Likewise the drivers would struggle without training for the longer race.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Jean Todt was already there when we were nothing more than a joke with Alesi and Berger.

It takes years to turn around a team, especially from where Ferrari was in 1993. Your view is oversimplistic. I have difficulty believing that you actually think someone who led Peugeot to two World Rally Constructors Championships, four Paris-to-Dakar victories, two Le Mans 24 Hour Victories and a World Sportscar Championship can take zero credit for building a winning team.

Fangio, despite his age and weight managed to wrestle his car with no seatbelts for races lasting over 3 hours. Senna and Schumachers cars, correct me if I'm wrong, featured power steering and assisted brake pedals. I feel in a car of that era, they would not have the endurance to keep up with Fangio for a full 1950's race distance, as they had not trained for it.

Modern F1 drivers are as highly 'tuned' as their machines. You wouldn't expect an F1 car to run flat out for races twice the distance of todays without encountering issues.
Likewise the drivers would struggle without training for the longer race.

Formula One drivers now are in far better physical shape than they were in the 1950's. It takes much more physical conditioning to endure consistent loadings of 3-4G's than it does to drive a 1950's grand prix car. Also as evidenced last weekend, Formula One drivers have really no trouble with driving a sportscar for four hours.

 

[Bigbazz]

Fangio, despite his age and weight managed to wrestle his car with no seatbelts for races lasting over 3 hours. Senna and Schumachers cars, correct me if I'm wrong, featured power steering and assisted brake pedals. I feel in a car of that era, they would not have the endurance to keep up with Fangio for a full 1950's race distance, as they had not trained for it.

Modern F1 drivers are as highly 'tuned' as their machines. You wouldn't expect an F1 car to run flat out for races twice the distance of todays without encountering issues.
Likewise the drivers would struggle without training for the longer race.

Power steering in the 1980s and early 1990s? I'm not sure on the year it was first introduced (I think 2002). If anything the older cars would be easier to drive due to the much thinner tyres (less resistance) and the large wheel (more leverage), as apposed to the much smaller wheel (less leverage) and much thicker tyres (more resistance). Not only that but the cars in the Senna/Schumacher era were relatively high downforce monsters, incredibly taxing on a driver over a race distance.

But like I said, Schumacher and Senna were trained athletes who were known for their time spent in the gym, Fangio was a slightly overweight 40+ year old bloke in a time where fitness wasn't a requirement. I can't see any logic in what you are saying to be honest.